Jihād and Prophetic Wisdom: A Scholarly Refutation of a Misconception "How could the Prophet lead wars?"
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all worlds. Peace and blessings be upon the Prophet whom Allah sent as a mercy to all creation, and upon his family and companions who strove in the cause of Allah with true devotion.
A question is sometimes raised regarding the life and actions of the Prophet ﷺ: “How can someone who claims prophethood and high moral standing lead armies and participate in fighting? Isn't war supposed to be evil in all its forms, and isn't fighting contrary to a divine message? Would it not be more fitting for a Prophet to be a symbol of absolute peace, rather than a military leader planning battles and distributing spoils of war?”
While this question may appear on the surface to be rooted in a love for peace and a rejection of violence, it is actually based on serious methodological errors in understanding the nature of human conflict and the wisdom behind Jihād (striving in the path of God, which includes justified struggle). It relies on an idealistic view that does not align with complex human reality. It is appropriate, therefore, to address this question through a comprehensive scholarly lens to uncover these errors and the hidden wisdom behind his actions.
Methodological Errors in the Misconception
1. False Generalization of the Nature of War
The first major error is the claim that war is an absolute evil in all circumstances, without distinguishing between the types of war, their motives, and their goals.
In reality, war is a means, and means are judged by their ends and circumstances. There is a fundamental difference between two types:
Aggressive, Unjust War: Waged out of greed for wealth, land, or to dominate people and satisfy a desire for expansion. This type is indisputably evil and universally condemned.
Legitimate Defensive War: Waged to repel aggression, remove injustice, protect the weak, and liberate the oppressed. This type is not an evil; rather, it can be a moral duty and a human necessity.
Equating these two is a blatant logical error. It is like equating the scalpel in the hand of a surgeon saving a life with the knife in the hand of a criminal! Or equating a police officer using force to stop a criminal with the criminal using force to harm the innocent.
If a doctor cuts flesh to save a patient, a judge imprisons to protect society, and a father disciplines his child for their upbringing, why is it criticized when the Prophet uses force to protect the truth and repel falsehood?
2. An Unrealistic, Idealistic View of Human Nature
The second error is a naive idealism regarding human nature. It assumes that humans are perfectly rational beings who respond to the truth as soon as they hear it—as if injustice and tyranny were merely a "misunderstanding" that could be solved with calm dialogue.
History and current events prove this assumption wrong. Many people of falsehood are fully aware that their position is wrong, yet they cling to it because it serves their personal or class interests. Such people are only deterred by a restraining force.
Consider these real-world examples:
Will a human trafficker, earning massive wealth from his forbidden trade, stop his crimes simply because of "kind advice"?
Will a tyrant clinging to his throne, stealing the people's wealth, step down simply because of a logical discussion?
Will an occupier plundering a nation’s resources leave their land simply because of a moral plea?
History testifies that such individuals are only deterred by force and the fear of punishment. Relying solely on kind words with them is a form of naivety that leads to the continuation of injustice and suffering.
3. Ignoring the Nature of the Conflict Between Truth and Falsehood
The third error is the naive claim that "the truth automatically imposes itself" without needing a force to protect it. This ignores the bitter historical fact that those on the side of falsehood often possess material power and political influence, which they use to suppress the truth, prevent its spread, and distort its image.
What should believers do then? Should they surrender to injustice under the banner of "peacefulness" and let falsehood prevail? Or should they defend the truth through legitimate means, including the use of force when necessary? Sound logic, human intuition, and divine laws all confirm that defending the truth is a duty and protecting the oppressed is an obligation.
4. Double Standards in Judgment
The critics condemn the Prophet ﷺ for participating in legitimate defensive fighting, yet they do not condemn nations for waging wars for the most trivial reasons.
When nations fight devastating wars over oil fields, trade routes, or political influence, these critics are often silent. But when the Prophet defends his divine call and protects his followers from torture and persecution, they rise up in condemnation! It is as if defending faith and human dignity is less significant than defending wealth and material interests.
The Logic of Divine Justice and Prophetic Wisdom
Justice Requires Punishing Aggressors
For those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, we say: If you believe that Allah will hold the oppressors accountable in the Hereafter with an eternal punishment, why is it objectionable to punish them in this world after the evidence has been established against them?
Indeed, worldly punishment may be a mercy for them, as it might deter them from continuing their tyranny, thereby saving them from a much harsher and longer punishment in the afterlife. This is like a wise doctor who intervenes surgically to save a patient from certain death; temporary pain is better than permanent destruction.
Protecting the Weak is a Moral Duty
A person who truly loves humanity seeks to remove obstacles that stand between people and guidance. The greatest of these obstacles are tyrants who prevent people from hearing the truth or who force believers to abandon their faith through coercion.
Consider this simple educational example: In a classroom, a disruptive student stops the learning process for everyone else. A wise teacher starts with advice, then a warning, then a penalty, and may finally have to remove him from the room to protect the interests of the other students.
Likewise, is it not an act of justice and mercy to break the power of tyrants who block the path of Allah and oppress the weak?
The Reality of Human Conflict
To those who do not believe in absolute moral standards, we say: In your materialist view, everyone will eventually die—the oppressor and the oppressed alike. By what logic then do you ask people to sacrifice their interests or give up their rights?
The reality is that all humans engage in struggle; the difference lies only in the motives. Some fight for land and wealth, others for nationalism, and some for "spreading democracy." Even those who raise slogans of peace have not hesitated to use extreme force when they deemed it necessary.
Therefore, the real question is not "Should we fight?" but rather "For what goal do we fight?" The early Muslims fought for a faith they believed was the path to salvation for all humanity, while others fought for fleeting gains or theories that history has proven wrong. Which of the two sides is nobler in its motives and more honorable in its goals?
The Great Wisdoms Behind Prophetic Jihād
Establishing Justice and Spreading Security
One of the greatest wisdoms behind the Jihād (struggle for the sake of God) of the Prophet ﷺ was the establishment of justice among people and the protection of the weak from the oppression of tyrants. It aimed to spread security and stability throughout the Arabian Peninsula, which had previously been consumed by perpetual tribal wars and endless cycles of revenge.
Before Islam, Arabian tribes fought for decades over the most trivial reasons; the strong devoured the weak, and the wealthy enslaved the poor. Islam came to put an end to this injustice and to establish a fair system that preserved the rights and dignity of all people.
Breaking Barriers to the Spread of the Message
Another profound wisdom was breaking the artificial barriers that tyrants placed between their people and the message of Islam. Many kings and emperors prevented their subjects from even hearing the call of Islam, distorted its image, and threatened those who considered embracing it.
Jihād served as a means to remove these political obstacles, enabling people to hear the truth without fear or coercion, allowing each individual to choose their path with complete freedom. This is why we find that in many lands opened through struggle, the people eventually embraced Islam through personal conviction and the good example of Muslims.
Disciplining Aggressors and Deterring Oppressors
Wisdom also lay in disciplining aggressors who broke treaties and betrayed Muslims, as well as deterring oppressors who persecuted and tortured the weak. A deterrent force is essential for maintaining security and preventing evil people from persisting in their malice.
The Holy Qur’ān clarifies this meaning in the verse: “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy” [Sūrat al-Anfāl: 60]. Here, power is prepared primarily as a deterrent, not necessarily to be used.
Addressing Potential Objections
"But Islam was spread by the sword"
Some may claim: "Islam spread by the sword and people were forced into it."
The response: This is a false claim contradicted by historical reality. Islam spread in many regions through peaceful invitation and good character without any fighting, as seen in Indonesia, Malaysia, and large parts of Africa. The Qur’ān itself states: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong” [Sūrat al-Baqarah: 256].
Jihād was intended to remove political obstacles facing the message, not to force individuals to convert. This is evidenced by the fact that religious minorities remained in Islamic lands, preserving their faiths for many centuries.
"But there were other peaceful ways"
Others might say: "There are other peaceful ways to spread goodness and reform."
The response: Islam combined peaceful means with military means according to necessity and circumstances; it did not rely on fighting alone. The Prophet ﷺ called people with wisdom and beautiful preaching for thirteen years in Makkah and did not take up the sword until after he was driven from his home and persecuted for his faith.
While peaceful means are preferred and prioritized, they are not always sufficient with everyone in all circumstances. Those committed to falsehood do not always leave their positions voluntarily, nor do they cease their harm without a deterrent force.
"But this provides a justification for terrorism"
A third may argue: "This understanding justifies terrorism and violence."
The response: There is a vast difference between legitimate Jihād and forbidden terrorism. Jihād is governed by strict ethical rules, including the prohibition of killing children, women, the elderly, and monks; the prohibition of destroying crops and trees; and the command to treat prisoners of war kindly.
Terrorism, conversely, is the random killing of innocents, failing to distinguish between a combatant and a civilian. Those who exploit texts of Jihād to justify terrorist acts distort the meanings and ignore the legal constraints (Sharīʿah), much like those who exploit principles of "freedom" to justify invading countries and killing innocents.
Conclusion: The Radiant Truth
After examining this misconception, it becomes clear to any fair observer that its proponents fall into logical contradictions. They demand an absolute idealism that does not exist in the human world and judge history with selective double standards.
It is clear that the fighting led by the Prophet ﷺ was not an aggressive whim or a thirst for power, but an inevitable necessity dictated by the universal nature of the message and the reality of confronting tyranny. Truth requires a force to protect it, the oppressed need someone to break their chains, and an arrogant falsehood is often only deterred by strength after it has rejected reason and evidence.
Real peace is not achieved by surrendering to injustice, but by establishing equity. True mercy is not found in letting wolves prey on sheep, but in protecting the weak from the strike of the strong.
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ combined the mercy of a shepherd with the courage of a warrior, and the wisdom of a leader with the justice of a ruler. He was a mercy to the worlds in his peace and his war. As Allah described him and his companions: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves” [Sūrat al-Fatḥ: 29]. They were firm against aggressive oppressors and merciful toward believers and peaceful people.
Allah said: “And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds” [Sūrat al-Anbiyāʾ: 107]. Part of this complete mercy is protecting the weak and breaking the power of corrupt aggressors.
May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon the Merciful Prophet, who fought only when compelled, was angered only for the sake of Allah, and used power only to establish justice and spread peace.
And Allah knows best. May Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.